As Justice Antonin Scalia has just written, the SCOTUS opinion against the state of Arizona concerning immigration problems has made the phrase 'sovereign state' of no further effect.

The primary function of government is to serve the people it represents. One primary function under that obligation is to protect the population it serves. The SCOTUS opinion states that - if the United States Federal Government has statutory mandate to fulfill that obligation - then the state has no right to supersede the Federal Government when the Federal Government refuses to extend that protection.

The effect of the SCOTUS opinion today is to eliminate states' rights' in a major area of the states' statutory mandate. Put another way, the Federal Government can establish rules that eliminate states' rights under historical common law.

This author therefore suggests that the state of Arizona call a Constitutional Convention of interested states - to potentially include Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Alaska and perhaps the Carolinas [and any other state wishing to bind itself under such restrictions as herein mentioned] - pursuant to forming a new sovereign nation established under the auspices of the original Constitution of the United States.

Such Declaration of Independence should include a rejection of an imperial presidency which reserves unto itself the right to establish and enforce laws as it best sees fit without legislative oversight. The Declaration should reject all laws and regulations that establish a socialist, communist or dictatorial interpretation of states' rights or citizen's rights.

Such a federation or commonwealth should recognize in perpetuity the right of any member state to withdraw from the union when the said union jeopardizes the rights, liberties or the pursuit of happiness of said member state and its citizens. It should recognize the responsibility of the Executive Office as lawfully established to enforce laws properly passed by the legislature of representatives of the people, and to be interdicted against reinterpreting the meaning of such legally passed laws or refusing to enforce said laws.

The convention of agreeable states should establish such legal standards as were envisioned by the Founding Fathers of the United States, and should carefully protect states' rights and individual citizen's rights.

It is impossible to see any other alternative for states and citizens wishing to protect their Constitutional rights in the face of a runaway Federal Government of the United States, and its various organs, that has all but suspended the founding intent of the original Constitutional Convention.

The simplest and easiest thing to do is scour the state statutes to find every instance where there may be an existing federal pre-emption or even partial pre-emption and simply refuse to enforce such laws as convient to the state or local budget.

A law passed back under Jimmy Carter made it a violation of federal law to kill or harm a federal employee, appointee or elected member of Congress, etc.

It should be the most trivial of exercises to EXCLUDE those folks from state and local protection in case of accidents, killings, robberies, etc.

Just wait on the FBI to find the bodies, or the injured parties, and tend to them.

As much as I sympathize and have even written about nullification, don't put it past this president's thinking to provoke any excuse he can to declare a state of emergency prior to the November election. We are truly dealing with a force of evil and there is no outrage beyond his imagination that he would not try if he believed he could succeed. If the Republicans should win the election and fail to reverse the damage they and the Democrats have done, then I would say there is no other recourse but to change the guards.

Won’t happen. The most probable outcome will be that Arizona writes a new law that creatively plugs whatever holes caused it to not receive SCOTUS blessing that attempts to plug the leak.

I can see a situation where they create a law that requires specific identification for actions that fall under State authority and once that is in place, they can arrest anyone who doesn’t have that identification, irregardless of suspicion of citizenship status. Then, once they are in custody, a background check will be done, immigration status one of the factors.

BS. The way the Constitution works is unless a power was explicitly sacrificed by the states it is reserved for the states or the people. Cf. the tenth amendment. There need not be a secession process drawn out for it to be legal. Since the Constitution does not say that the union is perpetual, and does not say that the states cannot secede, they can secede.

This is elementary. If the states had known in 1789 that the union was perpetual they never would have ratified it. Everyone knows that.

By the way, if it’s not legal, so what? Then it’s a revolution. Declaring independce wasn’t legal, nor was replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.

“Madison declared once in the Union always in the Union.”

He should have declared it in the Constitution.

“possible or not it is a very bad idea and would lead to far more troubles than it would solve”

Maybe, maybe not. I’m thinking more and more things might’ve been better had we just let the South go.

LOL - Of course it is not!
Rebellions, revolutions, and successions never are legal.

They are done in point of fact by locales, districts, areas or states, not by Federal law, and they are done because the controlling head of state has broken down into actions considered unlawful or repugnant to those so declaring - at gunpoint if needed.

12
posted on 06/25/2012 12:31:23 PM PDT
by bill1952
(Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)

None of us have seen 'nuttin if Obama gets re-elected. As for this decision....AZ should keep on doing what she has been doing to protect the borders. This SCOTUS has successfully enabled Eric Holder to do nothing again.

Tea Party GET OUT THERE AND START THE SOUND AND FURY OF WE THE PEOPLE!

13
posted on 06/25/2012 12:35:06 PM PDT
by yoe
(Proud to be part of the Tea Party movement.....!!!!!)

The constitution merely changed the form of government of the union declared “perpetual” by the Articles.

Conditional ratification (the ability to rescind a ratification) was widely discussed at the state ratification conventions for the Constitution. The most direct comment came from the letter Madison wrote to Hamilton on the occasion of the NY state convention where the antis had Hamilton momentarily stymied. The constitution had already been written.

The Revolution was against the Royal government within which there was no representation and which our people had never given its consent and were not treated as “Englishmen”. You are advocating a revolution against a government which is of our own making and within which we have representation. It is silly to believe that anyone today could come up with something better without a massive restriction of the number of people who could vote.

Had the Union been split by the RAT Rebellion of 1861 you would probably be speaking German and saluting Hitler’s successor. There was nothing good or principled about the South’s stupidity, it was an IGnoble Cause from start to finish. That was what Washington warned about in his Farewell Address.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.